There is a strange aversion in government circles to the use of open source software. I am no entirely sure where it comes from but I can try and debunk some of the misgivings they have. In most instances, releasing code as open source is actually a good idea.
Much of the reason why India has not yet achieved its full potential is because we simply have not invested in the institutional foundations of the Indian State. But, as Karthik Muralidharan describes in his authoratative book on the subject, there is reason to be optimistic.
Advances in technology have transformed our societal interactions in ways that challenge the state’s monopoly over violence. Today large tech companies (not governments) determine how our interactions take place. Which means that we need to rethink governance structures if the state is to continue to protect its citizens.
The myth of Pandora’s box, where opening a forbidden container unleashed the world’s evils but also hope, parallels scientific discovery. Each breakthrough, like CRISPR’s medical potential, brings unforeseen challenges, as seen with its controversial use in gene editing. Technologies intended for good, like the internet or drones, can be subverted for harm. Regulation alone can’t contain such knowledge; instead, we must design incentives to align technology use with societal goals, preparing us to handle the inevitable consequences of human curiosity.
The “Brussels Effect” is the phenomenon where other countries adopt regulation similar to the EU’s and as a result ends up extending Europe’s regulatory dominance. However, regulations like the GDPR have faced criticism for its burdensome compliance requirements. India’s DPI approach offers a new data governance model. But in order for this approach to be globally successful, strong regulatory institutions and a commitment to techno-legal governance are necessary.
